cgWerks

UrbaneLegend said:

Depending on your productions needs the Mac Studio is either a bargain of a lifetime or not a particularly great deal. For video and 2d creative work I think you'd need your head seen to if you didn't but a Mac Studio either version will run rings around most PC boxes running Resolve. I can see many post production studios coming back to the Mac and the lower end Studio being the hot seller, I predict this model will fly off the shelves.

Unfortunately for 3D artists like myself the GPUs are just too weak for rendering and there's no hardware raytracing and what's more disappointing Apple's own software acceleration structure isn't particularly great. There's still issues with the size of the kernel Metal is able to work with so it looks like it's going to be behind Optix/HIP in performance and features for a while.

Towards the end of the year both nVidia and AMD will be dropping their next gen GPUs which are predicted to be of the order 2x (maybe even more) the performance of their current GPUs and that probably puts daylight between an M1 Mac Pro let alone the Studio. Leaks coming from the nVidia hack show that the GPUs will have double the VRAM so 48GB renders the unified memory advantage of the M1 moot. No one is going to try and render a 64GB 3d scene on a GPU as weak as the Studio's.

For me as predominantly a 3D artist I can't see beyond a PC workstation but I will probably pick up a low end Studio for video and compositing to replace my iMac. I might wait until M2 to do that though.

Thanks, this is useful for me to ponder. I had hoped it would be in the ball-park of a good gaming/3D PC, but there are some differences between AMD/nVidia features and this, as you point out (like ray-tracing hardware). I've seen some videos where people were having trouble in modelers on a M1 Max MBP, but figured that was more due to software not being optimized.

I still haven't fully wrapped my head around the differences between CPU & GPU rendering. Back when I was doing it heavily, it was all CPU rendering and the GPU was for visualization while working on the project (the more GPU, the more realistic and quickly the scene was to work on). Rendering divided among the cores, or even over the network to as much hardware as one had to throw at it. I know there are now GPU renderers (final render, not just preview), but are they the norm? In certain industries?

The problem on the CAD/modeling side, is that some of the main modeling kernels aren't written for Apple Silicon, so all the apps that depend on them won't run or will be in Rosetta2. I noticed Vectorworks prominently featured, and have looked at their package a bit (for a job I interviewed for). I'd love to get into that, and it looks quite good.

But absolutely, for video editing or stuff like that, this is a total no-brainer, and I doubt there is much of anything even close.

mike1 said:
I'd bet the new Pro will be the first with M2 chips, probably M2 Max and Ultra.

Possible, but I doubt they'll make the Mac Pro an early model of the new chip. The M2 will be in the base machines until they scale it up eventually to the Mac Pro, I think. What they'll actually do to give the Mac Pro way more power than the Mac Studio, I can't even really imagine right now. But I don't think it will primarily be due to being a M2. Think of the M2 more like the incremental advances Apple makes on the iPhone each year... then just scale up more and more like we've seen from M1 -> M1 Pro -> M1 Max -> M1 Ultra.

melgross said:

Mitty said:

This seems to be an awesome machine but it's complete overkill for my needs. I was really hoping for a revised Mac Mini. 

I suspect that something like that might still happen. I know that John stated that there was one product left, the Mac Pro. But they discontinued the 27” iMacs, and it’s hard to believe they won’t have a 27” iMac to sell.

That, and the mini will most likely get revised, it will just happen when they introduce the M2. Wouldn't that most likely be summer-fall? They can also always add a BTO type option with bigger screen and/or Mx Pro, so long as going to the Pro won't push it past cooling capability (or they can clock it down like they did with the 14" MBP with the Max).

melgross said:
... I think we would be a bit disappointed if the M2 was just about 15% better, per core, than the M1. Two generations, along with the slight improvement in the process technology, could give a 25 to 35% improvement in performance, depending on how Apple decides to balance the performance/efficiency ratio. That could give a CPU number between 2160 and 2330. Which, if true, would run away with the core performance crown.

That's likely the kind of thing we'll see going forward, though. Which makes me believe they have to do something other than put the M2 into the Mac Pro. There needs to be a Pro-level of the M1, which will then get updated the next year with the same treatment to the M2. Each generation will see some, like you say 15%, 20%, 30% performance improvement over the similar build from the previous generation. Then they'll keep stuffing specialized things in there, like the machine learning cores, or video processing. Maybe it will be ray-tracing stuff or who knows what in a future generation (which scares me a bit planning on the Mac Studio M1. My luck, I'll get that and then the M2 or M3 will add a bunch of heavily wanted/needed stuff for CAD/3D people and I'll be crying).

That's the one downside of all this specialized hardware. When we were dealing with Intel chips and mainstream GPUs, you kind of knew what you were going to get. Then Apple added the M2, and overnight, *massive* improvements in video encoding. Now we're seeing that with these new Macs... jumps that make $30k machines obsolete. Apple seems good at that, so they'll probably keep focusing on special hardware for certain tasks/workflows. If you're unlucky enough to buy the generation right before they add it to something crucial to your workflow, you'll kind of *have* to sell and upgrade to the new one, as the difference will be that big.

UrbaneLegend said:

... If the Mac Pro is 2x M1 Ultra 40 CPU cores and only 128 GPU cores looks even worse balanced, knowing the software I use on a daily basis I wouldn't be able to keep 20 CPU cores busy let alone 40 CPU cores because over the years developers have pushed so much work to the GPU. I think the M1 architecture kind of looks anachronistic and old school. Give me a Mac Pro with 20 cores and 256 GPU cores or even better 512 GPU cores. I just don't see the content creator being that well served by large numbers of CPU cores in 2022. ...

Yeah, aside from just running a bunch of programs at once, or if you're into virtual environments. I think we're just getting the CPU cores along for the ride as the GPUs are being scaled up. The GPU is still where Apple needs to place more emphasis. We shouldn't be just roughly matching a high-end PC that has been around for years, with Apple's latest and greatest.

I'm still wondering if we won't see eGPUs and AMD implemented in some way eventually? At least the eGPU, even if it is Apple Silicon based.

UrbaneLegend said:

... 3D work is even more biased towards GPU performance with interactive viewport performance and rendering reliant on GPUs. Even in 2022 apps like Cinema4d are one thread wonders when interacting. Houdini and Blender are much better with threading but the law of diminishing returns kicks in very quickly double the CPU cores does not result in double the performance even when cooking sims. ...
This just isn't up to the level required for 3D artists to jump back on board Macs.

Yeah, this is the kind of stuff I need to figure out. I'm hoping more of it comes down to software and not some weakness in Apple's new platform. It would be sad if this is just primarily great for video editors and general use, but leaves the rest of us in PC-land again (or even worse than the last round of Intel Macs). If that's the case, then I won't want a Mac Studio, but just an M1 mini, and save my extra $ for a PC or a better GPU for my 2018 Intel mini.

john-useless said:
As others have already replied with good technical comparisons, I won't repeat that but will just share my story. I've had 27-inch iMacs at home & work for nearly a decade as my primary computers in each location — 2012 and 2013 models, respectively, both of which are pre-Retina models. I also have third-party 27-inch external monitors. This size screen works exceptionally well for me. I have been determined that when it came time to replace both iMacs, I wanted the same size screens but in Retina quality. 4K monitors (the Retina equivalent of old 1920 x 1080 HD displays) just don't have enough pixels for my needs; I really need 5K.

For my office, I recently replaced the old iMac with a MacBook Pro (14-inch, 2021 — with the top-of-line M1 Max) plus an LG UltraFine 5K Display (the 27-inch model, which of course is Retina quality) and an OWC Thunderbolt Dock (the newest Thunderbolt 4 model). I already have older external speakers & a subwoofer, plus additional external monitors, all of which I've connected via the dock to the new MacBook Pro. The LG 5K display is my "main" monitor.

To have roughly the equivalent at home — a 27-inch 5K Retina monitor and a Thunderbolt (3 or 4) dock equivalent, I could have bought another LG UltraFine 5K Display and another OWC Thunderbolt Dock … but those items together cost nearly as much as the new Apple Studio Display, which has higher quality speakers & a higher quality webcam and eliminates my need for a separate dock (your mileage may vary). I also like having the ability to buy AppleCare+ warranty coverage for $50/year that will likely protect my investment for many years into the future at reasonable cost (and well beyond LG's warranty).

Yes, the new Apple display is pricey … but in my case, it actually feels like an acceptable (and perhaps even good) value. I just ordered one (with the default stand and the standard glass). For the short term, I will bring home my new MacBook Pro from the office to connect to it when working at home. Perhaps in another six months or a year, I anticipate ordering a new Mac Studio (or perhaps a Mac mini with an M1 Pro processor, if Apple releases such a version in the future) to permanently connect to it at home.

Thanks. True, for all the things you're getting, it seems well worth the extra money over the LG. As noted previously, I'm looking more at 5k iMac minus... but it does have those additional features. For me, I just don't need those features, I guess. I'd be fine with a Retina version of my 1080p display, I think. Though, as I get back more into 3D/CAD work, I'll probably want more and more space. I'd think I'll eventually want 2 displays, though that would be near impossible to do with my current space limitations. Maybe I could fit the 5k, but does that seem like that much extra space?

I guess I also have to keep in mind the dock aspect. Good point. I don't need that now because I have several ports on the 2018 mini + a bunch of ports on my eGPU. But, if I go with a Mac Studio, I'd probably need a couple of extra ports. So, that *might* save the expense of a dock or hub or whatever.

Detnator said:
For most people 4K, 350nits, clunky build quality, and woeful customer support is enough.  That's what you get for $500-$1000.  Some of us want more than that. When the onIy 5K monitor around that's remotely Mac compatible was the LG I tried that, had multiple hardware issues with it, and dealing with LG's support probably took years off my life.  I tried 4K as an alternative, but for me at least, it just doesn't cut it.  Some people say they can't tell the difference between 150 and 220dpi, or 350 and 500 nits.  I don't get it. It's night and day for me. The extra pixels (it's almost twice as many) and increased brightness of the LG 5K make a significant difference to my productivity (when it's not going through LG's warranty repair processes).

Yeah, I can tell the difference between my display (currently a 1080p BenQ) and my iPhone or wife's new MBP. I'll certainly want a better display someday, if for no other reason than to get more screen real-estate. But, I just meant I don't care if it is some exact ppi. When I've heard people talking about *needing* the LG even if it sucks, and wishing Apple had a monitor, they seem to be almost saying it has to be 27" at that exact resolution or something, and that every other monitor isn't - almost as you worded it - remotely Mac compatible.

Having a bit more brightness and color accuracy would be nice as well, but displays have come so far, the difference doesn't seem to me like the wide gap that it used to be. The quality on my cheap BenQ has been quite nice... AND it even has multiple inputs! I've heard horror stories about the LG. I've had a few BenQs over the years along with a couple others, and I kind of stick with that brand now if I don't know otherwise. So, I'd probably do one of their 4K monitors, or the Apple if I decide to part with that much money.

Detnator said:
... If I only wanted it on my desk I'd just get the height adjustable mount, but I need it to move around in a few directions etc. in my home office, so I have a really long industrial arm attached to a pole mount, handling my LG 5K.  This will be a simple swap out.

Yeah, I also have an arm. I drilled a hole in the desk and installed it. It's crazy solid/stable. I don't think I'll ever go to a stand again. I love this setup. I can put the display exactly where I want it, or move it out of the way. The whole desk under it is free, though to be fair, you can't go too high or things would get into the swing-path.

saarek said:

It’s a shame about the price jump from £999 on the old displays to £1499, but it is what it is. The bit that stopped me preordering last night was the £400 extra for the tilt/height mechanism. As with the Mac Pro wheels they’re just taking the piss out of everyone right there!

Hehe, I guess it is perspective. I would have thought that was too expensive too. I'm looking at it from the other direction. 5k iMac minus the Mac part, should equal less than $1600. Apple is looking at it as a money-making main accessory to their computers, or pricing the long-term value into it, etc.

rundhvid said:

What is going on here?

• Weight (M1 Max): 5.9 pounds (2.7 kg)2
• Weight (M1 Ultra): 7.9 pounds (3.6 kg)2

Huh? I wonder if the Max has less power-supply/cooling/heatsink, etc. than they showed, as it doesn't need them? Interesting.

k2kw said:
Tape the studio to the back of the studio display.

A little effort and you might have a workable product idea!

Vermelho said:
Yeah, but I don't need the ultra option in a large iMac. The iMac Pro is effectively covered, but not the 27" iMac for around $2k.  What I would love is a 32" 5k iMac with the pro and max options and a similar form factor & monitor performance to the 24" for under $3k. 

I hear you there. Closest thing is probably a 3rd party display + a M1 mini, but it won't quite be a match for GPU power, or possibly RAM. As has been said many times, that 5k iMac was a pretty darn good deal price-wise. Or, maybe a base Studio w/ chaper 3rd party display. Not an all-in-one then, but you'd have more computer by a good bit.

Detnator said:
As far as I'm aware they stopped Target Display Mode when they doubled the resolutions to retina displays in 2015.  I am fairly certain that no 4K or 5K iMac has ever been able to be used as a display for another Mac via TDM. (D= Display, not Disk).

Because of this, the other comment confused me for a moment: 

I'm pretty sure you're right, and I was also confused by that comment. I actually briefly thought (before I realized it was wrong), that I should look into a 5k iMac (non Apple Silicon) as it would be enough Intel machine to suit my compatibility needs - instead of my 2018 mini - if I'd get the iMac display. Then I realized TDM would be as nice as having inputs like I do on my current monitor. Then I realized this was actually pre-Retina (less a problem about rez for me, but too old of a Mac). Then I realized I wasted time pondering it. LOL

Detnator said:
If you want to mine cryptocurrency, or do anything else with NVIDIA cards, you don't want a Mac.

Heh, well I'm holding out hope someone will eventually write a Metal crypto-miner. I'm actually surprised someone hasn't already, but maybe these machines need to get more popular and out in numbers before someone will be motivated to do so. I once read an article about how a miner works, by a programmer giving an example of the math/code, and it didn't look all that complicated (though I'm not a programmer, so don't even know how I'd begin).

If it performs like I think it would, that could be a blessing/curse, as the demand for the systems would probably skyrocket (and we'd have the same issue getting a Mac as people do buying GPUs).